|
|
MINUTES OF THE MEETING, 15/02/2000; PREPARED BY VINCENT
Alex was briefed earlier about critical points, mainly: questions
for the survey/experts and factors for the unfinished table in part
4. Vincent also recommended that she looks at scenarios. Alex noted
the adresses of other experts at CMU.
The meeting started
with an issue raised by Mary about products. It was concluded that
material gathered about that would appear in the appendix. Mary
rightfully pointed that Brochures would help during the presentation;
enabling the audience to see practical applications.
A second
issue was raised, relating to the “purpose of the paper”.
Vincent reassured the group that the paper was the first, hands-on
approach to technology assessment and would there be treated as such.
The importance is not placed on the quality of the report itself but
on our capacity to learn from each other. The amount of detail we put
into it depends on our willingness to take it out the academic realm.
Mary also offered a new insight on industry structure,
comparing existing products/companies with a table she compiled. That
would prove invaluable for part 4. She agreed to see to put that
information into computer format.
At some point the teacher
came to us to offer some assistance. Vincent asked how data could be
gathered at marketing research sites like Gartner. Alea answered that
we should look at the 'press releases' section. Other websites she
pointed at were:
www.techweb.com
www.cnp.com
Mary
voiced her concern about security and WC. A final issue raised was
the functionality of speech recognition technology across many
different languages. Alea answered that it constituted only a
software problems. Real time translation for a variety of dialects is
effective when WC can 'download' necessary language
component.
/Vincent Rochette/